link between Johnny G, other Iowa boys, and Jacob W?

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know very little about John Gosch (Johnny's father), but this interview from 1992 at least gives a bit of a glimpse into who he was (and who Noreen was) in the first 10 years following Johnny's abduction:

GANNETT NEWS SERVICE, September 7, 1992
September 7, 1992, Monday

AFTER 10 PAINFUL YEARS, FAMILY KEEPS PROBE ALIVE
FRANK SANTIAGO; Des Moines Register
Ten years ago, Johnny Gosch, 12, who was delivering the Des Moines Sunday Register, dropped from sight a few blocks from his West Des Moines home.

His abduction on Sept. 5, 1982 - and that of Des Moines Sunday Register carrier Eugene Martin, 13, across town on Aug. 12, 1984 - has confounded local police, state and federal agents, private investigators, clairvoyants, weekend detectives and others ever since.

After hundreds of so-called leads, rewards that once totaled more than $ 200,000, file cabinets full of investigative reports, and now confessions of a man in a Nebraska prison, there have been no arrests, no suspects.

''Johnny and Gene are probably a one-of-a-kind case,'' says John Rabun, vice president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, based in Arlington, Va.

Department of Justice figures say that of the 3,200 to 4,600 abductions of children each year by strangers, most are short-term incidents. About 200 to 300 are kidnappings in which the child is kept overnight or is moved a long distance for ransom, kept permanently or killed.

Gosch and Martin would be included in the smaller group, but likely would be in a much smaller sub-grouping, says Rabun.

Authorities have not linked the cases, although they have many similarities. The boys were about the same age. They were delivering newspapers early Sunday in residential neighborhoods. They were close to a newspaper drop where they had picked up bundles of papers.

''These two cases are so close as to be identical,'' says Rabun, who has investigated hundreds of missing children cases. ''There is a possibility Martin was a copycat of Gosch. But what happened to the boys essentially leaves more questions than answers.''

Noreen and John Gosch have braced themselves for the worst.

''If he has gone through 10 years of pornographers and pedophiles as we've heard the stories, I hope he isn't alive,'' says John Gosch. ''But on the other hand he is still our son. We'd love to have him back, but what condition he would be in is probably undesirable.''

The decade has left permanent scars. The Gosches haven't given up the search. Their frustrations are more obvious. They don't know how the story will end - or if it ever will.

''Divorces among parents of abducted children are pretty high. This is horribly damaging to all members, and it takes different forms and aberrations,'' says Rabun.

Sitting in their living room, a few blocks from the sidewalk where their son's wagon was found with its bundles of undelivered newspapers, the Gosches have beaten the odds.

''You have a set of parents who are still together and who haven't totally destroyed themselves over the situation,'' John Gosch says.

The Gosches have two grown children, one male, the other female, but they insist that their identities be kept confidential.

''I don't think we could have done much more. We weren't trained policemen. We just did what we thought was right. We got the word out and we started searching,'' Noreen Gosch says.

The family successfully campaigned for legislation to have police move quickly on missing children cases. They have appeared on national television, at forums and in national magazines speaking for children and warning about the threat of abductions.

They have sold candy bars, had bake sales and garage sales to raise more than $ 100,000 for private investigators and handbills and posters. They have cashed insurance policies and emptied their savings to continue the search.

''We had resigned ourselves to the fact that Johnny was dead and that we would go to our graves not knowing what happened. All of a sudden the name Paul Bonacci came out of nowhere and we had the truth. There were things that he said he could not know'' without having been involved with Johnny's abduction.

Bonacci is an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary in Lincoln who claims he participated in the abduction. His story got wide publicity a year ago.

The 24-year-old Bonacci is to be released in October after serving time for sexually abusing a minor. A grand jury labeled Bonacci, said to have multiple personalities, ''a pathetic figure.''

The Gosches believe Bonacci and his story that their son was taken for pornographers, driven to a house in Sioux City, then to Colorado and to a fate where his personality and appearance have been dramatically changed.

West Des Moines police have not interviewed Bonacci and have no plans to do so.

''It wasn't that we didn't check out what he was saying,'' says West Des Moines Police Lt. Gerry Scott. ''We interviewed family members to determine if there was anything that he was saying that was remotely connected to the case and we just couldn't find anything.''

Scott says the FBI also claims Bonacci is not a credible witness.

Meanwhile, Noreen Gosch says the grieving process never ends.

''Even after 10 years when I hear that a body has been found or something like that my heart turns over. You think, 'Is this it?' But nothing happens. Then it starts all over again.''

 
HeartofTexas said:
I know very little about John Gosch (Johnny's father), but this interview from 1992 at least gives a bit of a glimpse into who he was (and who Noreen was) in the first 10 years following Johnny's abduction:
Thanks for the insight here. I hope someone does not take what John said out of context. This interview was 10 years after the fact, and it seemed that John had already resigned to the fact that he would never see his son again.
 
inquiringmindz said:
I don't think this case has been logical or simple in any form since the beginning. LE did not respond properly from the beginning, or what we would deem as proper by todays standards......

I believe this case is one of the exceptions to the rules of simplicity. No matter how many layers you shave off a simple explanation is not visible.
I think that Johnny's case wasn't handled well but the standards of dealing with missing children was different then. By today's standards it was woefully negligent but back then like you say-child dissapearances were not the norm and it was handled much differently.

I think if you peel this case down to the core there are lots of simple explanations. Because Johnny Gosch has not been recovered, alive or deceased we can't confirm any of them. Just because a simple explanation can't be proven doesn't mean an extraordinary one must have occured.

I've said before and I'll say again I don't think Noreen is mentally ill. I think she's beeen terribly manipulated by a number of skilled con artists over the years and is on a terrible emotional tightrope. I can not fathom how terrible it must be for her and I can not say that I would react better to losing my child. However I beleive that Noreen desperately wants to believe Johny is alive, not matter how horrible his life was because thinking he may be dead would be an even more horrible reality to face.

In a way it reminds of Amy Billig's case, how so many different people told her mom so many different stories and she looked for her daughter for so many years. There was always someone stirring the pot for Susan Billig's, always someone with another lead, another tip, but no one who ever gave her a solid answer where she could know what happened to her daughter and come to peace with it.

Becca
 
Originally Posted by HeartofTexas
reality she is a mother who worked tirelessly in the beginning to enact laws that would assist families in locating missing children. It wasn't until other people came to her and told her about Johnny still being alive that she changed courses.
I've been trying to write something meaninful about this post but will have to settle for a 'thumbs up' comment.
I'll try agian:
Trying to say Noreen 'has lost it' excludes so much evidence regarding the case that is external to her situation.
As if she were the only one 'saying strange things'. Besides Ex-Senator Decamp, what about the integrety of Ernie Chambers, or Loran Schmidt, to name a few 'big shots'.
Is everyone so sure that these people are 'led astray' by a 'single source', i.e. Paul B. or some other 'single source'?
If Noreen has 'lost it' she has company with others who AREN'T as removed from the case as your average poster. People who have seen information the public hasn't.
People certainly competent enough to manage public offices effectively, if also controversially.
 
James "Danny" King was a friend of Bonacci, Alisha Owen & Troy Boner. He testified in the perjury trials that he was part of an attempt to extort money through false allegations - along with the others - and was coached on what to say and who to falsely accuse:

http://www.franklincase.org/6-5-91.htm

The lawsuit DeCamp originally filed listed 16 persons and 'entities' as defendants, and sought $110 million dollars in damages. This lawsuit was dismissed against all the defendants, except the one who was penniless in prison - Larry King. In other words, in every case where the defendant bothered to answer the lawsuit it was dismissed:

http://www.franklincase.org/2-8-91.htm
 
Interesting point. Compare that to this:

http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/index.html

where the family's have opted to not pursue damages, instead focusing on informing the public of thier situation.

I have respect for that. Numbers vary, but apparently 100's of millions of dollars have been spent by the church 'settling' these issues, and IMO serving to perpetuate the problem. This is a 2 way transaction. Victim families have to be willing to accept the money for this to happen.

I don't mean to be judgemental. The shock and anger of the situation in conjunction with America's 'litigous society' I'm sure helps alot with these families decisions. But to step back and look at the problem as a whole, I would think most would say it serves to cover and perpetuate the problem overall. I wonder if there aren't enough people going the 'crusadeagainstclergy' route. I sure wouldn't want to be faced with the scenario. I personally think you can't know 'till it happens to you...

I've often considered the financial aspects of the 'conspiracy theory', not so much from law suits as from book sales.

All that being said, while I think it's a good point, I'm not sure I subscribe to it. I would say the scope of the case extends beyond the Franklin kids, though one can argue the financial gain argument applies elsewhere.
 
Pablo said:
If Noreen has 'lost it' she has company with others who AREN'T as removed from the case as your average poster. People who have seen information the public hasn't.
People certainly competent enough to manage public offices effectively, if also controversially.

...There is a lot of information, especially right now, that the public is unaware of.
 
cappuccina said:
...making fun of them in any way....Also, you are dead wrong in saying that she "chose" to be mentally ill...Now, that's actually not a nice thing to say at all... Obviously, this woman was completely traumatized by what happened to her son...That is totally understandable...Unfortunately, some people are less resilient than others, and unlike Patty Wetterling, she was not as resilient, and thus her beliefs about what happened to her son have helped her to insulate herself...

Statistically, most children kidnapped by strangers are murdered within the first few hours of their disappearance (FACT).

H.O.T. didn't say she chose to be mentally ill, you should reread her post.

If you look at any of the claims about this case, there is really nothing statistically driven about it.

If you refuse to look outside the box [on this case], all you'll see are 4 brown walls.
 
Pablo said:
I've often considered the financial aspects of the 'conspiracy theory', not so much from law suits as from book sales.


Maybe you can elighten me as to whom is getting rich off book sales for this case?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

...snippet...

"Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms.

Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction. As sociological historian Holger Herwig found in studying German explanations for the origins of World War I:

Those events that are most important are hardest to understand, because they attract the greatest attention from mythmakers and charlatans.
This normal process could be diverted by a number of influences. At the level of the individual, pressing psychological needs may influence the process, and certain of our universal mental tools may impose epistemic 'blind spots'. At the group or sociological level, historic factors may make the process of assigning satisfactory meanings more or less problematic.

Alternatively, conspiracy theories may arise when evidence available in the public record does not correspond with the common or official version of events. In this regard, conspiracy theories may sometimes serve to highlight 'blind spots' in the common or official interpretations of events..."

...more...

"The term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with methodological flaws.[1] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" is used as a pejorative term. Some people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial..."

...more...

"When conspiracy theories combine logical fallacies with lack of evidence, the result is a world view known as conspiracism. Conspiracism is a world view that sees major historic events and trends as the result of secret conspiracies. The historian Richard Hofstadter addressed the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout American history in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, published in 1964. The term conspiracism was popularized by academic Frank P. Mintz in the 1980s. Academic interest in conspiracy theories and conspiracism has presented a range of hypotheses on the basis of studying the genre. Among the leading scholars of conspiracism are: Hofstadter, Popper, Barkun, Goldberg, Pipes, Fenster, Mintz, Sagan, Johnson, and Posner..."
 
William:
Maybe you can elighten me as to whom is getting rich off book sales for this case?
Certainly not any of the Franklin kids. Skeptics of the Franklin kids would say 'because they failed'.

I would speculate there is mostly one possibility for any real profit from this case in particular, and that's from John Decamp's book. However, I'm not in a position to know. I don't know publishing, and don't know book %'s going to authors, but from listening to Decamp sale books during radio promotions, and buying it myself, I'd say he is selling at least relatively cheap, if not really cheap. Also, from piecing together various bits of info here and there, I'd say he is getting by OK [he's a lawyer!:)], but I get the idea its from his his 'law practice' and not from the Franklin case in particular. Perhaps, his book profits pale in comparison to the practice. It wouldn't surprise me if he donates all his book profits. Can a lawyer benefit from pro bono? Didn't Decamp go pro-bono on all the kids he represented?

I wonder if Ted Gunderson could profit from the case. No books right? It would have to be some kind of internet sales from his site.

That's what I would say about the possibliites for this case in particular.

I think Decamp has shown extraordinary character in working the Franklin case. I'm from a small community in the midwest and there are definitely some people who, when they say 'If I ever find out any of these things is true I'll be the first to do something about it', will. Even with extreme reluctance.

You mentioned 'looking outside the box'. I came into the Johnny Gosch case from the Franklin case, and not vice-versa. I am trying to respect the intentions of this thread. My logic: Exposing some kind of ring could lead to information regarding Johnny and the others mentioned in this thread. And so to me the Franklin case is a valid topic.

But where does going outside the box potentially lead? For me, one thing was to the many books on 'mind control' victims. These kinds of stories go back a ways. I know that Cathy & Mark apparently have sold multi-millions of copies of their books (not saying that story is true or false). Profits to me raise the possibility of motive for the stories. I would say its natural and normal to desire these kinds of stories to be true, because they offer a quick fix to a number of problems. For example, Conspiracy Theory: 'Your govt. doesn't have the best interest of it's citizens in mind, and is essentially a cover for a 'business', utilizing the productive forces of the workers for the benefit of a relative few'. (Wild, Wacky, Way out there, I know. Like we've dropped habeous corpus or something. Come on, get real) <-sarcasm
But if something like this were true, people think, 'hey that can be fixed'. With people willing to profit from this natural inclination, I'm cautious, and become confused, when a case like Johnny's, leads to a case like Franklin (vice-versa, in my case), which leads to the various topics saturated with disinformation (and I assume some profits).

So I'm cautious and wondering where is this 'just money being made' and where is this 'the truth'.
But I think the relatively more grounded Franklin case LEADS to these confusing area's where truth is blended with profit.

Bottom line is, without being in a position to know, I think the Franklin thing and it's relation to Gosch is more about the truth, not money, and I can't enlighten you as to who might have profited.
 
'If he has gone through 10 years of pornographers and pedophiles as we've heard the stories, I hope he isn't alive,'' says John Gosch. ''But on the other hand he is still our son. We'd love to have him back, but what condition he would be in is probably undesirable.''
Johnny's father sounds logical . . . but cold. I can't imagine being so distanced from the person who, no matter what has happened, is still your child.

I do remember a special on HBO that featured Johnny Gosch's case, something about missing/abducted children. In it, John Gosch was driving around with a camera person, talking about his son. At one point he pulled over to check out a pile of what turned out to be clear, whitish plastic on the side of the highway. Johnny, he said, had last been seen wearing white. John Gosch said he always checked out flashes of white on the side of the road, in the hopes that it might be Johnny. I remember, and I was pretty young when I saw that special, thinking that his father must have really loved him to stop at the side of the road just for a flash of white that might have been a sweatshirt.

So now I'm conflicted. Noreen makes him out to be a part of it (the whole conspiracy theory), but he seemed like a very worried, concerned father in that HBO special. Now this statement about Johnny being "undesirable." He's an "iffy" type of person, John Gosch, Sr.
 
reb said:
OK… forgive me if this has been discussed before (surely it has).. but has anyone tied together johnny, eugene martin, marc allen (all from iowa), AND jacob wetterling… ?? jacob only lived about 350 miles away from des moines (6 hrs). if you look on a map it’s a straight shot north- all you have to go is go straight up 35, and go west on 94 to st. joseph (jacob’s home)… both towns are just off the main highway. and i guess what strikes me is how similar their features are… and they all occurred in the 80’s, within 8 years of each other- 1982, 84, 86, & 89. all were healthy and fit with a slim build (then again, weren’t most kids back in those days??), very similar brown hair with side bangs and boyish good looks- & already looked like handsome young men at a young age…. probably just the kind of teenage boy that pedophiles (or a ring) would be looking for. perhaps this points to the fact that it was the same individual or group.. as it seems they were going for the same profile.

here’s someone else i keep thinking about-
i wonder if many of the grown men on missing cases lists- either disappeared, or unidentified murdered or suicides, ever have anything to do with the missing children themselves?? in other words,, how many of the mysteriously missing men, might be guilty of abducting children- that might be right there next to them, on the list?? some who we think are victims might actually be the perps themselves.

check out the sketch of jacob's abductor at the bottom:
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/w/wetterling_jacob.html

then look at this guy (only one state away, in iowa):
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/w/walvatne_mervin.html

jacob was abducted in ’89, and this guy vanished in 1990… it says jacob’s abductor could be as old as 50, and this guy was 53 when he vanished… it also says he’s disabled (doesn’t say how- that could mean a lot of different things?). what if a child kidnapper operated for many years and was paid to do so, then had to go into hiding? perhaps he led a double life for all those years & no one even know he was a sex offender/child abductor-- then either disappeared in order to not get caught, or decided he wanted out (if he was working for a pedo ring) & went into hiding so he wouldn’t get killed by his employers, or was killed because he knew too much?

i’m sure these things are cross-checked all the time… but again, it’s just something to consider.

http://www.johnnygosch.com/images/man.jpg

then there is this pic that was sent to Noreen Gosch same time the pic of Johnny was..
He too looks alot like this man
 
cappuccina said:
[/B]

Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction



Please, Mr. Thomas is my dad.

Secondly, I wouldn't consider the concept of Johnny Gosch being kidnapped by a pedo ring as stimulating any emotional satisfaction whatsoever. Perhaps you might find it that way, as your post states, but I find the whole possibility debilitating, and quite disturbing.

Also, just as a PS, you are aware the wikipedia, the source of many of your, um, opinions or information, is a user edited forum, and the primary claim of many of the participants is bias and slant, one way or another. I only mention this, because it's not considered a reputable or scholarly source simply for that reason.

AND, I don't recall ever posting that I subscribed to a conspiracy theory. As a matter of record, if you go back and READ my prior post (start with the 2 locked threads), you'll see that I state several times, that I don't think there was any unified GOVT coverup or conspiracy.
 
inquiringmindz said:
I agree 100% with the above statement. I too have conversed with Noreen a time or two and she in no way, shape, or form acts or speaks like a mentally ill person. She did not choose to have her son taken away from her. She did not choose to live the last 24+ years without her son. She did not choose the path that she has been given. She has done everything within her ability to find justice for Johnny. She still is still seeking this today. She has chosen to travel down a path, a path fighting for the rights of missing children. When she dreamed of how her life would be, this wasn't the dream - this has been a nightmare for her. No one would choose this willingly.

And therein lies a lot of what people want to forget. It's easy to make someone out as a villain, or "mentally ill" over the internet, where you have never met them, conversed with them, or walked in their shoes. Noreen is so much more inteliigent than I have seen all but a few on this forum give her credit for. Truth be told, after all the years and fights and threatsw, Noreen still comes across as a kind and caring mom, which is what strikes me most. She doesn't harbor the bitterness and vitriol that half the people who post about her do. She knows she has made a difference, and in the end, thats all that has ever really mattered to her; to make it less painful for others who go through what she has gone through, while trying to alleviate some of her own pain.

Do you really think she is blind to the opinions expressed on forums like this? Do you think for one second she doesn't see how some folks hold her in judgement, while only having a cursory understanding of what this case truly involves? She isn't blind to it at all. She just keeps walking forward, fighting for what she believes is right, whether any soccer mom from Poduck nowhere, or wanna be armchair slueth from Chicago believes her or not. You can analyze her actions, and the what-ifs, and where-fors, but to hurl accusations of "mentally ill", and schizo and crazy are just completely disrespectful and unwarranted.

God forbid, that myself, or any of you should ever be thrust into a situation where a child is taken from you, and as you, in the best way you know how, try to develop a theory about how it happened, and find your child, the public turns on you, tries to paint you not as you are, but how they want to see you, to just to provide themselves with some morbid entertainment value, just to hide from their own fears and inner demons.

"It can't happen to me, it only happens to lunatics like her". But of course, we all know it can, and it does.
 
I do not belive anyone accused her of being menatlly ill to be mean or malicious. Caould you blame her if she was. She (in my soccer mom from podunk opinion) has been manipulated by people with sinister motives during a fragile period in her life. I blame them, not her, she hasn't done anything wrong. I harbor no bitternes towards her, I feel sorry for her. Lets face it, this high reaching pedo ring thing is a little out there for many reasons but this isn't the place for it. This thread is about the link between Johnny, and other missing boys from that area and time period, not conspiracy thories and Noreens mental state.

Does anyone have any information about murders of young boys in that area?
 
I stated several times that I would completely understand why a mother who has had her son cruelly taken from her could end up like this...

The only folks equating mental illness with "villainy", etc. were William Thomas and HoTexas who are offended by my simple explanation as to what most likey happened to Johnny.

William, The statement I bolded and enlarged more fits the thought processes of Johnny's mother....Frustrated with LE's not being able to solve the case, with few leads and little evidence, a complex and highly improbable conspriacy theory is the only thing that offers her ANY hope that her son is alive....I have stated numerous times that I can totally understand why she would want to do this. However, that does not make the theory valid in any way. Being sympathestic to Noreen Gosch, and saying that the conspiracy theory is totally unfounded are not two mutually exclusive events.

As far as Wikipedia goes....There are THOUSANDS of mainstream academic articles saying the exact same things as the Wikipedia passages. I found the Wikipedia passages to me the most concise and easily understood. If you like, I would be glad to quote some more articles that are more esoteric and less concise if it would make you feel better; let me know...

Your homework, William, should you choose to accept it, is to find 5 currently employed LE officers, and 2 folks who teach criminal justice, give them the two choices as to what happened to Johnny (abduction and murder by pedophile, or vast conspiracy theory, including but not limited to folks like our current President), and see which they think is more plausible and why.... ;)
 
Cappucina, I was offended by your statement that I said Noreen was mentally ill when, in fact, it was you who said it, as per this quote from one of your posts:

Jphnny's mother is severely mentally ill...
...I do not blame her....She lost it when her son disappeared...
Cappucina, you can spin it any way you want, and you can accuse me of "villainy", but the truth is that the only person who accused Mrs. Gosch of being "severely mentally ill" is you.
 
cappuccina said:
Your homework, William, should you choose to accept it, is to find 5 currently employed LE officers, and 2 folks who teach criminal justice, give them the two choices as to what happened to Johnny (abduction and murder by pedophile, or vast conspiracy theory, including but not limited to folks like our current President), and see which they think is more plausible and why.... ;)


I was a Criminal Justice major. I've already done my homework. Maybe it's time you did yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
1,546
Total visitors
1,631

Forum statistics

Threads
605,981
Messages
18,196,279
Members
233,685
Latest member
momster0734
Back
Top